On Tue, Apr 24, at 07:27 Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 08:27, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> > Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/24/07 02:11 CST:
> > > Then -1 to Matt's proposal to remove the patch. Seems dumb to remove
> > > a patch that provides a better end product.
> >
> > In
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Robert Connolly wrote:
>> On Tuesday April 24 2007 02:50, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>> On the computer I'm typing this message on, 'uname -a' reports this:
>>>
>>> Linux rmlscsi 2.6.14.3 #1 PREEMPT Sat Mar 25 07:47:39 CST 2006 i686
>>> pentium3 i386 GNU/Linux
>>>
>>> What would i
Robert Connolly wrote:
> On Tuesday April 24 2007 02:50, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> On the computer I'm typing this message on, 'uname -a' reports this:
>>
>> Linux rmlscsi 2.6.14.3 #1 PREEMPT Sat Mar 25 07:47:39 CST 2006 i686
>> pentium3 i386 GNU/Linux
>>
>> What would it report without the patch?
>
On Tuesday 24 April 2007 08:27, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/24/07 02:11 CST:
> > Then -1 to Matt's proposal to remove the patch. Seems dumb to remove
> > a patch that provides a better end product.
>
> In my haste in replying I didn't think through this response,
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Hi,
>
> http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1990 proposes to have LFS use the
> same uname patch for Coreutils that HLFS uses. Note also that CLFS uses
> another version of the uname code that adds outputs for more architectures
> still.
>
> Given that all 3 b
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/24/07 02:11 CST:
> Then -1 to Matt's proposal to remove the patch. Seems dumb to remove
> a patch that provides a better end product.
In my haste in replying I didn't think through this response, please:
s/Seems dumb to/I would prefer that we didn't/
--
Robert Connolly wrote these words on 04/24/07 01:57 CST:
> On Tuesday April 24 2007 02:50, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>> What would it report without the patch?
>
> The "pentium3" would become "unknown". The patch sets "uname -p".
Then -1 to Matt's proposal to remove the patch. Seems dumb to remove
On Tuesday April 24 2007 02:50, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 04/20/07 16:55 CST:
> > Given that all 3 books use different patches, it serves a purely cosmetic
> > purpose (as far as I know), and upstream will not entertain the patch at
> > all in its current form, I'
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 04/20/07 16:55 CST:
> Given that all 3 books use different patches, it serves a purely cosmetic
> purpose (as far as I know), and upstream will not entertain the patch at all
> in its current form, I'd like to drop it.
>
> Thoughts, comments?
On the compute
On Friday April 20 2007 17:55, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Hi,
>
> http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1990 proposes to have LFS use
> the same uname patch for Coreutils that HLFS uses. Note also that CLFS
> uses another version of the uname code that adds outputs for more
> architectures sti
Hi,
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1990 proposes to have LFS use the
same uname patch for Coreutils that HLFS uses. Note also that CLFS uses
another version of the uname code that adds outputs for more architectures
still.
Given that all 3 books use different patches, it serves a
11 matches
Mail list logo
